TheCommissionwill consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

1. 2006.0070T(C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)

IMPLEMENTATION OF Legislationto Control theLOSS OF DWELLING UNITS- Code Implementation Document - Proposed procedures and criteria to implement newly-adopted Code Section 317 requiring Planning Commission hearings for the removal of certain dwelling and live-work units. The document also sets numerical criteria, some of which are subject to administrative adjustment in response to changing economic conditions.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 20, 2008)

(Proposed for Continuance to February 12, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Borden

2. 2008.1393T (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

Ordinance Rescinding Planning Code Articles 10 & 11 in their Entirety and Adopting a New Article 10 & 11, and adding new Planning Code section 176(F) [Board File No. 08-1565]-Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Daly and former Supervisor Peskin that would rescind Articles 10 and 11 from the Planning Code in its entirety and adopting a new Article 10 and 11 to implement the provisions of the new San Francisco Charter Section 4.135 (Historic Preservation Commission), and to add Section 176(f).

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending.

(Proposed for Continuance to February 26, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Borden

3. 2007.1147T(T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

Amendments to Articles 10 and 11 and adding a new Section 309.3 of the Planning Code-Ordinance introduced by Mayor Newsom amending Articles 10 and 11 and adding a new Section 309.3 of the Planning Code, contingent on voter approval in the November 4, 2008 general election of the proposed Charter amendment creating an Historic Preservation Commission, to provide additional criteria for Planning Commission review of Historic Preservation Commission decisions, to provide for Section 309 review at the discretion of the Planning Department Director of certain projects requiring Certificates of Appropriateness under Article 10 of the Planning Code, and to create a rebuttable presumption of compatibility for certain projects requiring Certificates of Appropriateness under Article 10 of the Planning Code; adopting findings, including environmental findings and findings required by Section 101.1 of the Planning Code.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 8, 2009)

(Proposed for Continuance to February 26, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Borden

4a. 2007.0308CV(B. BENDIX: (415) 575-9089)

3545-3547 20th Street-south side between Lexington and San Carlos Streets; Lot 082 in Assessor's Block 3609, in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) Zoning District with a 50-X Height and Bulk designation. Project site will be rezoned as Valencia NCT (Neighborhood Commercial Transit) Zoning District through adoption of the Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plan. Pursuant to Planning Code Sections 135 and 305, the project requests approval of an Open Space Variance to not provide direct access to the dwellings' common open space. This request will be heard and considered by the Zoning Administrator.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 11, 2008)

Note: Due to the adoption of the Eastern Neighborhoods rezoning, the project no longer requires Conditional Use. The Variance case will be rescheduled and re-noticed.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: No Commission action is required

4b. 2007.0308CV(B. BENDIX: (415) 575-9089)

3545-3547 20th Street-south side between Lexington and San Carlos Streets; Lot 082 in Assessor's Block 3609, in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) Zoning District with a 50-X Height and Bulk designation. Project site will be rezoned as Valencia NCT (Neighborhood Commercial Transit) Zoning District through adoption of the Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plan. Pursuant to Planning Code Sections 135 and 305, the project requests approval of an Open Space Variance to not provide direct access to the dwellings' common open space. This request will be heard and considered by the Zoning Administrator.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 11, 2008)

Note: Due to the adoption of the Eastern Neighborhoods rezoning, the project no longer requires Conditional Use. The Variance case will be rescheduled and re-noticed.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve Project

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 11, 2008)

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Borden

5d. 2007.0921DD(A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)

673-675 44th AVENUE- west side between Balboa and Anza Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1587- Request for Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application No. 2007.09.20.3151; proposing to demolish the existing two-story, two-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 11, 2008)

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Borden

5e. 2008.1213D(A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)

673-675 44th AVENUE- west side between Balboa and Anza Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1587 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2007.09.20.3152 and 2007.09.20.3157; proposing to construct two new, four-story, two-unit buildings in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 11, 2008)

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Borden

B.COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

6. Commission Comments/Questions

Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).

Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Antonini:

He commenting on 299 Valencia that was before the Board of Supervisors last week: People spoke in opposition to granting the CU for more than as-of-right parking. [We went through a long process during Market /Octavia and approved .75 for as-of-right parking. However the Board (of Supervisors) approved .5 for as-of-right parking with conditional use and with specific criteria.] In considering this case, I think the project met the criteria the Board required when granting additional parking. However, they decided that the additional parking made the project less desirable and didn't grant the conditional use. I appreciate that coming up and I think we are going to hear that as part of a discussion of parking and how much of traffic congestion has to do with residential parking as opposed to other sources.

Commissioner Sugaya:

In reference to Market/Octavia discussion that Commissioner Antonini just brought up – I think there were some references to the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and it was in the context of having the CAC weigh in on issues. I thought the CAC was set up more for commenting on the community benefits program and that I thought that the CAC was not going to be involved in specific conditional use or other similar issues of our decision making here.

Commissioner Olague:

When I spoke with members of the community they seemed in my mind to be more concerned with how the Department reviewed conditional use permits. I think in the future they wanted to have the sense that when the Department reviews projects, especially projects in the Market/Octavia area regarding parking requirements that more is given to what conditional use permits actually means other than as-of-right. I think that CAC was less of a concern than the Department's review of conditional use.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

7. Director's Announcements

Director Rahaim-- He attended the monthly meeting of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods on Tuesday evening. It's an organization that has a huge interest in much of what the Planning Department is doing. I thought it was a good exchange and I appreciated the invitation.

ZA Badiner-- Commissioner Moore recently raised the issue of bird mortality and buildings effect, and how they are lit, etc. The Department through Mr. Nikitas has arranged for the Conservation Director for the Golden Gate Audubon to come to the Planning Commission to make a brief presentation of a program called SF Lights Out – a program designed to work with building owners to turn out the lights during critical times of migration cycle. We are also looking at a future report on window issues and how they affect birds.

8. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals:

Board of Supervisors'events reported by Tara Sullivan-Lenane:

The Land Use Committee has been set with Supervisor Maxwell retained as Chair, Supervisor Mar as co-Chair, and President Chiu completing the committee. They will meet on Monday for the first time.

Board of Appealsevents reported by Zoning Administrator Badiner:

One item – 1406 Montgomery – you did not see it. We denied it because it was a permit to expand an existing garage that is 12'6 now and over the Residential Guidelines. The proposal was to expand to 14 feet 2 inches. We felt that was not appropriate. The project wanted the ability to put two cars in side by side. The motion to overturn the Letter of Determination had a +3 -2 vote. The motion failed because they need 4 votes to overturn Department actions. So we won. The important point is that the Residential Guidelines are law and must be followed. The other point I want to bring to you your attention is that the Board had an election last night and Commissioner Fung was voted as President and Vice President is Commissioner Peterson.

9.INFORMATIONAL REPORT on effect of foreclosures on renters/tenants

NOTE: This item is on calendar at the request of Commissioner Olague. There was no staff presentation. Assessor's Office staff had been invited, but for whatever reason could not attend. Commissioner Olague thanked Dean Preston of Tenants Together and Sarah Short of Housing Rights Committee for taking the time to address this topic.

SPEAKERS:

Dean Preston, Director of Tenants Together -- a statewide organization for tenant's rights. We are perusing fairness and justice for California's 14 million Tenants. In February we are launching a foreclosure rights hotline for tenants around the state to call because so many tenants and organizations that serve tenants are in the dark about this. Tenants are innocent victims of the foreclosure crisis. They are living in property and they are not the ones who are not paying the mortgage – they are presumably the ones who are paying their rent and then a foreclosure occurred. In 2008 there were nearly a quarter of a million foreclosure sales in California. That is more than double the figure for 2007. That just relates to residential. Although the figure is hard to pinpoint, the best estimate is that at least 25% of those properties foreclosed on in 2008 are tenant occupied properties - not owner occupied. The percentage of people impacted by the foreclosures is much higher – closer to 38%. The reason is that many of the buildings that get foreclosed on are multi unit buildings. In San Francisco the numbers are similar. Based on the data we got from a service called Foreclosure Radar, there were 608 residential foreclosures –more than double the number in 2007 and the percentage was 28% that were not owner occupied. These numbers don't capture situations that don't go through a foreclosure sale like a notice of default or situations where a property is deeded back to the lending institution. So the scope of impact on San Francisco and California is much bigger than what the actual foreclosure numbers will show. The affect on tenants varies considerably both around the state and in San Francisco. The most common things we here about are calls about how the property is managed after foreclosure or efforts to evict. Generally the bank is the owner after foreclosure. Either the bank is a very bad landlord or they simply don't want to be landlords. It is common to have no maintenance on the property, no repairs done, utility bill aren't paid and utilities are cut off, and all of this with very little notice to the tenant. On the eviction front, the banks ordinarily move to evict the tenant in the building if they can. In San Francisco has just cause eviction protection for many of its units. In those properties where the rent ordinance applies, a foreclosure is not grounds to evict. Those tenants should be protected. The problem is that many of those tenants don't know that and many of the banks that assume ownership of those properties don't know that. It is important to make sure that all parties involved understand that the change of ownership does not mean that these tenants have to vacate. For those tenants that do have to vacate – those that are not protected by the rent ordinance, perhaps because they are in newer buildings, would have 60 days under a state law passed last year, to vacate the property. Multiple agencies have been involved in this. The Assessors Office has taken a leadership role in moving forward to try to notify the tenant as early as possible – as soon as the notice of default is filed so that these tenants know that they don't have to vacate and that they have certain rights once a foreclosure occurs.

Sarah Short, Executive Director of the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco– We provide counseling and legal information to renters. Over the last year we have definitely have seen a steady increase in the number of cases. The types of issues that people are facing even with just cause protection are situations where landlords disappear. Tenants aren't necessarily aware that the property has been foreclosed on and that the property has changed hands. It may now be owned by a band who has a broker representing them and there are now layers of ownership and just a lack of tenant awareness of who and where to go to for what; where to pay the rent. It's sort of MIA (missing in action) landlord situation. Related to that the brokers or realtors are sort of the middle man are advising tenants much more heavy handedly and demanding that tenants vacate their property; that the building is no longer going to be a rental property. We've seen notes left on doors. We've seen a broker knocking on the door late at night or early in the morning telling people that the building has been foreclosed and you've got to go. This is the first time people have heard of sometimes. One of the things we are most concerned about right now is utility shut offs. The previous owner stops paying the bill and no has taken responsibility to pay the bill and the utilities get turned off. Residents go to PG&E. PG&E tells them how do we know you live there? Or they are told we can set up an account in your name but you are responsible for the back bill. All sorts of things are happening for people without utilities. The other thing we are seeing with these brokers and banks, sometimes banks that are not even in San Francisco, is that they are not aware of our laws here. They have not done their due diligence to find out their responsibility as a landlord now that they officially own that property. They are simply trying to evict people in spite of the fact that it is illegal in San Francisco. A lot of tenants have just seen the notice and they don't know their rights. They are scared and they leave anyway. The other thing that happens is they have to go through the court process and seek agencies that will assist them. They spend a lot time and energy. They build up a lot an anxiety around the future of their home although the bank is doing something illegal. We are just one of several organizations in San Francisco trying to help. We have seen close to a hundred cases this year. We look back two years ago where we saw one case or none. We have formed a coalition with other organizations to work on these issues. One of our first steps was to meet with the Assessors Office and explain that we needed access to the information about who was getting foreclosed on, who the real new owner is, and the renters need to know what is going on so they can assert their rights. The result of that is that the Assessor is going to put out a letter to all residents of foreclosed properties or where a notice of default has been filed that tells them what their rights are and that they do not have to move under San Francisco Rent Control laws, and that have resources, like our organization, to get support. It will also tell them where to go if their PG&E has been shut off, and that they can call the Assessor's Office for help to find out whom to pay the rent to, who is responsible for repairs; who is to held accountable? Some steps we are looking forward to include more work insuring that PG&E does not shut off power in the first place. I note that we do not have this problem with water because it is a public utility and there has been a long standing policy that there is not going to be water shut off in this same type of way. We are also working the City Attorney's Office on trying to enforce some of the state laws to force PG&E to comply. That is one of the biggest problems because when there is no power it can work as an eviction tool. Renters end up leaving the property because it is unlivable and there are displacements. You have an eviction without going through the courts process. We need to figure out a way to protect those tenants that fall through the cracks better. We also need to notify the banks and or lenders. Some of them just don't understand that they are now landlords and they need to know what our laws are and what their responsibilities are. It's mainly an issue of outreach and education to banks, landlords, brokers, utility companies and also to the residents themselves.

Sue Hestor– We have a unique situation - condo foreclosures. We have several thousand units of use-restricted condos, namely artist occupancy and live/work. Who is going to pay attention that the occupancy restrictions are enforced? The Planning Department should get ahead of this and include a question on every application of any sort that comes in: Is this owner occupied or a tenant? Commercial properties should be included. We should also start looking at where the tenant doesn't get notice. CUs and Tenants-in-common are examples. We need to get ahead of the blight issue.

ACTION: Informational only. No Commission action

Discussion of 3400 Cesar Chavez Street and the conditions of approval.

NOTE: This item is on calendar at the request of the Commission. A couple of weeks ago there was a report that the project had made a commitment to the Commission that it would be a union project. There was a claim in public comment that it was not a union project. That is not an issue where the Planning Department can get involved.

SPEAKERS:

Steve Vettel, representing the Project Sponsor– The only condition of approval that has to do with labor on the job is the first Source Hiring agreement. It is a condition that is mandated by the Administrative Code. That was done. There was public testimony that we made that the job would be a union job. But those aren't conditions of approval. Those are commitments that we made and my letter does go into detail as to how that commitment is being fulfilled. We feel absolutely 100% sure that we are fulfilling that commitment and all of the work on the job site is being done with union signatory subcontractors.

NOTE: The Zoning Administrator suggested that the Department ask the First Source Hiring Director to prepare a memo for the Commissioner's packets. If afterwards commissioners would like further information or a presentation, it could be calendared. The first step is to start with an explanation of the program and what the requirements are.

ACTION: Informational only. No Commission action

11. (D. JONES (415) 558-6477)

1326 POLK STREET(FRANK NORRIS PLACE)- Informational item to discuss current enforcement status related to a violation of the Planning Code for the failure to fully dedicate 100 percent of a 32-unit, double-density project for seniors or physically handicapped persons per Planning Code Section 207.4(b).

NOTE: The Code provision does not trigger a CU and the double density would be as-of-right. The Planning Department records show this project as a senior housing project. It has come to the attention of the Department that the units are not being exclusively marketed for 100% occupancy of seniors and/or physically handicapped persons. 23 units have been sold with 6 sold to non-seniors and/or physically handicapped persons. The Planning Department would not have approved the permit for double density if there was any evidence that the units would not be dedicated for 100% occupancy of seniors and/or physically handicapped persons. The Department issued a Notice of Alleged Violation. The project sponsor appealed and the Board of Appeals upheld the violation.

SPEAKERS:

Jessica Nosanchick and Paul Ratner, non-senior owners of one of the units who are requesting a reversal of the fraudulent sell

Audrey Moi, senior owner of one of the units who finds the marketing and subsequent selling practice upsetting

Sue Hestor- general statement that the Department needs to pay attention to the Subdivision and get the City Attorney involved. Does the Department have a list of all the senior projects? The Department has known this was coming for two years and what have they done to change course? You need to have a presentation involving the City Attorney that tells you what an NSR is.

ACTION: Informational only. No Commission action

D. GENERALPUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

SPEAKERS:

Sue Hestor – regarding ground-floor retail: We need to think about how to activate ground floor with something other than retail. What is of concern is people putting in a use on the ground floor and then pull the blinds. There is no activity, no life that provides safety on the street.

E. REGULAR CALENDAR

12a. 2006.0826CV (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

1946 Polk Street(AKA 1591 Pacific Avenue)- southeast corner at Pacific Avenue, Lot 024 of Assessor's Block 0596 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow development on a lot exceeding 10,000 square feet, to reduce parking requirements, and to grant an exception to bulk requirements. The proposed project is to demolish an existing 1.5-story retail building and surface parking lot and construct a new 5-story mixed-use building containing approximately 39 dwelling units, approximately 35 parking spaces, and approximately 2,300 square feet of ground-floor retail space. The project site is located within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from the Regular Meeting of January 15, 2009)

SPEAKERS:James Sun -

We haven't had enough time to look into car share as this commission requested

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to February 5, 2009

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Borden

12b. 2006.0826CV (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

1946 Polk Street(AKA 1591 Pacific Avenue)-southeast corner at Pacific Avenue, Lot 024 of Assessor's Block 0596 - Request for a Modification of Rear Yard Requirementswithin a Neighborhood Commercial District. The proposed project is to demolish an existing 1.5-story retail building and surface parking lot and construct a new 5-story mixed-use building containing approximately 39 dwelling units, approximately 35 parking spaces, and approximately 2,300 square feet of ground-floor retail space. The project site is located within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.The Zoning Administrator will consider the request for modification of rear yard requirements concurrently with the Planning Commission's consideration of the conditional use authorization at this same hearing.

(Continued from the Regular Meeting of January 15, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed in item 12a

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to February 5, 2009

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Borden

13. 2007.0118E (J. DEAN: (415) 575-9028)

SAN JOAQUINPIPELINE SYSTEM PROJECT- Informational Presentation and Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report - TheSan Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is proposing the San Joaquin Pipeline (SJPL) System Project.The SJPL System Project proposes repair or replacement, of 6.5 miles of SJPL No. 3 at the eastern portion of the existing SJPL System beginning at the Oakdale Portal in Tuolumne County and extending west to an unincorporated area of Stanislaus County. The project would construct one new approximately 11-mile pipeline segment beginning west of the San Joaquin River in Stanislaus County and extending west to the Tesla Portal located in San Joaquin County. The project would also construct two new crossover facilities along the SJPL System: Emery Crossover located about 9.5 miles west of the Oakdale Portal in unincorporated Stanislaus County; and Pelican Crossover located west of the San Joaquin River at the eastern terminus of the new pipeline segment in unincorporated Stanislaus County. Ancillary project components include site improvements at Oakdale Portal, construction of two new throttling stations along SJPL No. 3 in the eastern portion of the SJPL System; and upgrade/replacement of existing discharge facilities at Cashman Creek; and replacement of the existing valves and discharge piping and addition of a new discharge valve at the California Aqueduct.

Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department's offices until the close of business on January 26, 2009.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required

SPEAKERS: None

RECUSED: Sugaya

ACTION: Hearing held to receive public comment only. No Commission action

14. 2005.0164E(T. Johnston: (415) 575-9035)

BAY DIVISION RELIABILITY UPGRADE PROJECT- Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report - TheSan Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is proposing the Bay Division Reliability Upgrade Project (also known as BDPL No. 5 ).The project would be constructed as a 21 mile pipeline, parallel to, and within the existing right-of-way (ROW) of BDPL Nos. 1 and 2, which originate at the Irvington Tunnel Portal in Fremont, pass through the cities of Fremont and Newark in Alameda County, cross the Bay at the Dumbarton Strait, and continue through the cities of East Palo Alto, Redwood City, Menlo Park, and unincorporated areas of San Mateo County. The project (also referred to as BDPL No. 5 ) would include a seven-mile reach (or sub-segment) in the East Bay that begins approximately 100 feet east of Mission Boulevard, near the Irvington Tunnel Portal, and continues westward through the cities of Fremont and Newark to the Newark Valve Lot. A proposed five-mile tunnel would extend from the Newark Valve Lot to the Ravenswood Valve Lot in Menlo Park, crossing beneath the Bay. From the Ravenswood Valve Lot, BDPL No. 5 would extend nine miles westward to the Pulgas Tunnel Portal in unincorporated San Mateo County. Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department's offices until the close of business on Thursday, February 5, 2009.

Preliminary Recommendation: No action required.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Hearing held to receive public comment only. No Commission action

15. 2005.0142E (B. Bollinger: (415) 575-9024)

733 27th Avenue- The proposed project is located at 733 27th Avenue (Assessor's Block 1617, Lot 003) in the Outer Richmond neighborhood - Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The existing two-story building is approximately 2,486 square feet in size, 23'-9 in height, and has one off-street parking space. The proposed project would construct a horizontal addition that would extend the existing building about six feet to the north property line and six feet west into the rear yard and a vertical addition that would add a third floor to the existing building. The proposed horizontal and vertical additions would add approximately 2,061 square feet to the existing 2,486-square-foot building and would remain a two-unit residence. The proposed building would be a three-story, approximately 4,547-square-foot building with two off-street parking. The project site is within an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) zoning district and within a 40-X height and bulk district.

Alice Barkley – Attorney for Project Sponsor, and Dr. Karen McNeil – Carey & Co.consultants on the project represented the project and were available for questions.

ACTION: Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration was upheld

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

RECUSED: Sugaya

ABSENT: Borden

MOTION: 17809

16. 2005.0751DDD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

733 27th Avenue- west side between Balboa and Cabrillo Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 1617 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.05.12.3640, proposing to construct side and rear horizontal additions and a vertical extension to the existing two-story, two-unit building resulting in a three-story, two-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve.

SPEAKERS:

Steve Williams – Attorney for Mr. & Mrs. Schultz, DR requestors, asked for a description of the current proposal

Gary Gee – Architect for the project, described the proposed project with current changes

Alice Barkley – Representing the Project Sponsorin opposition to the DR request/support of the project

ACTION: Took DR and approved per plans dated 1/15/09 that allows the front façade gable; and a 5x5 foot cut out of the rear north wall

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Borden

DRA #: 0058

17a. 2009.0038D(A. HEITTER: (415) 558-6602)

32-40 VARENNES STREET- east side between Green and Union Streets; Lot 036 in Assessor's Block 0115 - Request for Staff-Initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2008.07.28.7751; proposal to reconfigure a dwelling unit for installation of a garage opening and ramp in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

ACTION: This item is on calendar in error. The item was noticed for hearing on 2/5/09

17b. 2008.1340D(A. HEITTER: (415) 558-6602)

32-40 VARENNES STREET- east side between Green and Union Streets; Lot 036 in Assessor's Block 0115 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.06.12.4300; proposing to construct a stair penthouse on the roof of the building and associated rooftop deck in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve Project.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: This item is on calendar in error. The item was noticed for hearing on 2/5/09

F.PUBLIC COMMENT

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

SPEAKERS:None

Adjournment:6:40 p.m.

These minutes were proposed for adoption at the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission on Thursday, May 14, 2009.

Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Commission or Department. All written or oral communications, including submitted personal contact information, may be made available to the public for inspection and copying upon request and may appear on the Department's website or in other public documents.